Homosexual marriage...

[Archaea]

Enforcing our moral opininons? You are really too much.

By consensus of LDS and NON-LDS, the peoples of various states have declared that gay marriages is an anathema and should not be allowed.

In California, there is no majority of LDS, but a majority of Californians simply refused to take the affirmative action of recognizing something never before recognized.

You are stating far more than you are willing to acknowledge. You are completely intellectually dishonest, without a doubt.

And the simple case of Rocky in SLC showed adding additional beneficiaries DOES cost money. There was a fiscal note to it.

And you make a logical conclusion which isn't compelled. What empirical proof do you have to show adding gay marriages will reduce the spread of disease? What categorical proof do you have gays would be monogamous? If you want to argue, they might be, then I can see an argument, but based on my surveys and knowledge of some of the activities that occur in the gay community, I would say you have no idea how promiscuous that tendency simply is. Adding a marriage construct would have little or no influence on the spread of disease, and there is no data to support that hypothesis.

[Mormon Red Death]

Here is a letter I wrote to may favorite columnist of NFL.com (Tuesday Morning Quarterback). He also is a brookings scholar and writes for the new republic.


Mr. Easterbrooke,
I was reading your archives on Easterblogg and came across your piece on 11/21/2003 which stated your opinion on homosexual marriages. After reading that piece I felt that your opinion on the matter wasn’t as thought out as your usual posts. Therefore, I have endeavored to write you an email that I hope will cause you to seriously ponder and change your viewpoint on the matter. Since your post declares, “Let's set aside the dueling legalese about gay marriage” I shall try and do the same and just argue against your main points. Your points that I will counter are:

1. Jesus’ mantra was that love for other people is the same as love for God; therefore, Christians should be happy that homosexuals in love want to marry.

2. People marry for economic reasons, they marry to create a new family structure to replace the one that must inevitably fade as their parents age; they marry for mutual support in life's travails; people wed to receive the legal advantages of marriage and the community respect accorded this state. But why should it cause any umbrage in the community if two people of the same gender see all the reasons above as ones that they, too, should wed? As long as a gay or lesbian bond is a true marriage--intended as a lifelong commitment--the desire of homosexuals to enter into such unions ought to be viewed by the married as a great compliment to their institution.

3. Much of the opposition to gay union seems to boil down to legal tradition and to taste. Additionally, legal traditions change all the time.

Jesus’ mantra was that love for other people is the same as love for God; therefore, Christians should be happy that homosexuals in love want to marry.

Marriage is one of God’s most sacred institutions. Through one’s marriage and subsequent family God has provided his children a perfect means in which to be happy. From the scriptures it is very clear that God intended his children to marry. We read in Mark 10:6-9

6. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female
7. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8. and they twain shall be one flesh then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

It should be noted that Marriage is ordained between a Male and a Female. And that God did not intend this sacred union to be with those of the same sex.

.Jesus Christ was very adamant of his followers having “love for one another”. As you eloquently put in your column early Christians bonded together with their love for one another as glue. Just because Christ loved everyone does not mean that he condoned their sin. Homosexuality in the Bible is clearly a sin. In fact, this particular sin, according to the scriptures, is exceptionally egregious. In Leviticus 18:22 and 1st Timothy 1:10 we read:

22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

10,11. for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

This sin is so bad that God destroyed a city (Sodom and Gomorrah) with fire and brimstone. Furthermore, God wanted to make more of a point about this type of wickedness. When Lot’s wife looked back she became a pillar of salt (Genesis Chapter 19). Since God is truly against this sin why would he condone it in his most sacred institution? The fact of the matter is that those homosexual unions are not what God intended for his children. If one was to argue that homosexuality is not a sin anymore then they are gravely in danger of what Isaiah warned us of (Isaiah 5:20).

Your statement of “If you could understand one thing and only one thing about Christianity, it should be that Jesus held love the highest fulfillment of the spiritual ideal. In Christian thought, the state of love is the most important achievement available in all the cosmos: to men, to women, to God. And in Christ's "this is my commandment" teaching, love between people is given significance equal to divine love” is one that I agree with wholeheartedly. However, loving someone does not mean you should condone their wrong actions. If your son was a drug dealer would you not have love for him while at the same time having contempt for his behavior? Furthermore, would you want him permitted to have all the rights you enjoy? As I have gone over ad nauseum homosexuality is sin. Not only is it against the law (sodomy laws), but most importantly homosexuality is not a situation (just like any other sin) that will lead a person to happiness. Those who choose that lifestyle maybe be temporarily pleasured but I have no fear in saying that in the long run one who chooses that lifestyle brings upon their own destruction and unhappiness. Wickedness never was happiness. Isn’t our happiness the key and object of our existence?

People marry for economic reasons, they marry to create a new family structure to replace the one that must inevitably fade as their parents age; they marry for mutual support in life's travails; people wed to receive the legal advantages of marriage and the community respect accorded this state. But why should it cause any umbrage in the community if two people of the same gender see all the reasons above as ones that they, too, should wed? As long as a gay or lesbian bond is a true marriage--intended as a lifelong commitment--the desire of homosexuals to enter into such unions ought to be viewed by the married as a great compliment to their institution.

People do get married for the reasons above, however if we are to extend these rights to same gender couples where does it end? For example, if homosexuals are to be married because they love each other why don’t we let siblings marry? Why not an animal and person? Why not a young child and an adult? According to your logic, as long as they love each other, “these unions should be viewed as a great compliment” to the institution of marriage. This argument comes down to the way that the courts interpret marriage. If marriage is interpreted to be a civil right, then all people should have it - spinsters and deviants included. On the contrary, the majority must insist on its own way, as long as the civil rights and liberties of the minorities are protected. Another note that should be recognized is that marrying for love is a fairly recent convention - and may perhaps be the reason behind so many failed marriages. Sure, people fell in love, but it was not the major impetus until the age of industrialization allowed people leisure, life span, money and transportation, so their options increased.

Much of the opposition to gay union seems to boil down to legal tradition and to taste. Additionally, legal traditions change all the time.

The idea of marriage is not one born out of legal conventions. Mitt Romney Governor of Massachusetts wrote in an editorial for the Wall Street Journal on 2/5/2004 in which he declared, “Marriage predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.
Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.” To further Mr. Romney’s words I submit my argument that marriage between man and woman is not just a legal tradition, it is an institution that has been around since recorded history. The government of the United States of America or any other government does not have the right to redefine it. The opposition that Christians should feel to homosexual marriage is not in malice of those who chose this lifestyle but in defense of society’s most crucial building block.
In conclusion, it is my sincerest hope that you seriously evaluate your position on homosexual marriage. As a Christian like you, I do my best to have love for my fellow man (or woman). Furthermore, as a Christian, I refuse to accept unions of homosexuality in what I believe to be society’s most sacred institution

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I support the proclomation, and I am sure that people will be held accountable for their decisions. None of that is at issue here. Here, the question is to what extent the church should seek to COMPEL compliance with LDS beliefs.

How does the church “compel” anyone to do anything. Every organization has its agenda that it tries to push, do you really think that the Church should be any different? Gay organization will be trying to push their moral beliefs on everybody else, and you say that just because we have been on the losing end of legislation we should stop trying to further our causes.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Alkili

How does the church “compel” anyone to do anything. Every organization has its agenda that it tries to push, do you really think that the Church should be any different? Gay organization will be trying to push their moral beliefs on everybody else, and you say that just because we have been on the losing end of legislation we should stop trying to further our causes.

I have said no such thing. I have never stated that the LDS church should not take a stand on homosexuality, or even homosexual marriage. I have said that they should not lead efforts to establish legislation which codifies the church's position on homosexual marriage.

The church "compels" acceptance of its position when it does everything within its power to make its belief a matter of law.

Not only have we been on the losing side of legislation, we have been on the wrong side of many moral issues. That is to be expected, as the church is run by imperfect, though inspired beings. Given our past experiences, I would think more caution would be in order here.

I do find it ironic that most LDS people are much more opposed to polygamy today than non-LDS people. In this very thread, some have said that we cannot accept homosexual marriage because it could then open the door to polygamy. I tend to think polygamy is much more harmful to a society than homosexual marriage is, but the LDS position on the topic today is light years away from where it began.

[Archaea]

Homosexual marriage worse than polygamy? Perhaps modern polygamy as practiced by the whackos in Colorado city.

Yeth Muslim cultures permit it, as did the patriarchs. Your positions make it difficutl to understand how and why you're LDS. You sympathize with the gay movement and apparently find nothing wrong with gay marriage, actually believing it might have some "benefits".

Wrong side of legislation? What's up with that?

Most states now have anti-gay marriage legislation, not based on efforts the LDS alone. "Codifying its version of morality"? You're full of yourself here.

To simply state what a majority of persons have always recognized, that the state will protect only a marriage between a man and a woman, how is that being on the wrong side of legislation?

It's not discrimination, as it's protecting something recognized for time immemorial, that has always been. There has never been gay marriage until Holland starting messing around.

You can't say that about slavery, as that is convention which has not always existed.

You argue the LDS should be cautious about legislating its morality. I'm not sure what inanity you're referring to, but, what about supporting what a majority of others desire, protecting the definition of marriage, is not being cautious. Do you define it only as not being involved in the legislative process? That's called abdication.

You seem to have a private agenda here, but aren't really willing to state what. Mike has declared the status of his brother, so he could be understood if he were sympathetic, but he hasn't posited a view that the LDS is not being careful in supporting the legislation recognition of marriage.

For declaring yourself to be an intelligent guy, your logic is non-apparent. Now I suppose you're resort to the rubric you learned in law school of a slippery slope, go ahead. I'm glad you can parrot what your professors sold you on.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Enforcing our moral opininons? You are really too much.

By consensus of LDS and NON-LDS, the peoples of various states have declared that gay marriages is an anathema and should not be allowed.

In California, there is no majority of LDS, but a majority of Californians simply refused to take the affirmative action of recognizing something never before recognized.

You are stating far more than you are willing to acknowledge. You are completely intellectually dishonest, without a doubt.

And the simple case of Rocky in SLC showed adding additional beneficiaries DOES cost money. There was a fiscal note to it.

And you make a logical conclusion which isn't compelled. What empirical proof do you have to show adding gay marriages will reduce the spread of disease? What categorical proof do you have gays would be monogamous? If you want to argue, they might be, then I can see an argument, but based on my surveys and knowledge of some of the activities that occur in the gay community, I would say you have no idea how promiscuous that tendency simply is. Adding a marriage construct would have little or no influence on the spread of disease, and there is no data to support that hypothesis.

Somebody forgot their morning exercises to purge all emotion from their life!

I can't follow your position on the subject. On the one hand, you argue that homosexual marriage is anethema to LDS beliefs and cannot be accepted. On the other hand, you argue that you would accept arguments that homosexual marriage should be allowed if it proves fiscally beneficial. Does fiscal policy trump your perception that homosexual marriage is anethema to LDS values? Just trying to pin down your position here.

What exactly do you mean when you say "based on my surveys....?" Exactly what surveys have you conducted on this issue? This makes the second conversation in a row where you have cited your surveys. Can you provide any actual data produced by your surveys?

I will say this, your surveys somehow missed an awful lot of data that homosexuals married or in civil unions are more likely to be monogamous. Here are a few links for your perusal:

1. Gay male couples who go through a public "union ceremony" seem to show a higher commitment to monogamy. Gretchen Stiers's 1999 study, From This Day Forward, looked at nearly every gay male couple in Massachusetts who had gone through a commitment ceremony. Among these highly committed couples, over 80% of them indicated that they practiced monogamy. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031...59948?n=283155

2. Vermont allows civil unions between same-sex couples; so two University of Vermont psychology professors did a study comparing these homosexual couples in civil unions with 1) homosexual couples not in unions and 2) married heterosexual couples. Among the findings: 79 percent of married heterosexual men felt non-monogamy was not okay, compared with only 34 percent of gay men not in civil unions and 50 percent of gay men in civil unions. (From a web article hosted by "Out In The Mountains" -- Vermont's voice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues; at http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oi...an2003/news06_ firstyear.htm.)

3. A survey was done in 1988-1989 that involved 560 male couples (http://www.buddybuddy.com/survey.html). Survey forms were circulated through gay churches and community centers, but most couples requested the forms after reading notices in the gay press, so these also were some of the "very most committed" gay couples. Among these couples, 63% said that their sexual agreement was one of monogamy, 26% said their relationship was one of monogamy with agreed exceptions, and 11% said they had agreed to non-monogamy.



While I don't find the statistics noted above to be conclusive, I do think they are persuasive.


As for "categorical proof that allowing homosexual marriage will reduce the spread of disease," if homosexuals who are married are monogamous, then they are limited to spreading any disease to just one partner. Homosexuals who are NOT married, by the way, are extremely likely to have multiple partners (thus INCREASING the likelihood of disease).

A final thought: how does the fact that over 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce factor into maintaining the sanctity of marriage? How about the fact that over 70% of married men have seriously considered adultery?

The church is a moral beacon for the world. I don't question that. There are a lot of problems with marriage overall in society and the church is right to be concerned. I have no problem with the church saying what it feels is right and what it feels is wrong. That is the job of the church, and of any church. My problem here is that the church is taking an active role in legislatively defining what the moral definition of marriage should be. In that regard, I think the church crosses a dangerous line that makes the church more susceptible to problems down the road.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Homosexual marriage worse than polygamy? Perhaps modern polygamy as practiced by the whackos in Colorado city.

Yeth Muslim cultures permit it, as did the patriarchs. Your positions make it difficutl to understand how and why you're LDS. You sympathize with the gay movement and apparently find nothing wrong with gay marriage, actually believing it might have some "benefits".

Wrong side of legislation? What's up with that?

Most states now have anti-gay marriage legislation, not based on efforts the LDS alone. "Codifying its version of morality"? You're full of yourself here.

To simply state what a majority of persons have always recognized, that the state will protect only a marriage between a man and a woman, how is that being on the wrong side of legislation?

It's not discrimination, as it's protecting something recognized for time immemorial, that has always been. There has never been gay marriage until Holland starting messing around.

You can't say that about slavery, as that is convention which has not always existed.

You argue the LDS should be cautious about legislating its morality. I'm not sure what inanity you're referring to, but, what about supporting what a majority of others desire, protecting the definition of marriage, is not being cautious. Do you define it only as not being involved in the legislative process? That's called abdication.

You seem to have a private agenda here, but aren't really willing to state what. Mike has declared the status of his brother, so he could be understood if he were sympathetic, but he hasn't posited a view that the LDS is not being careful in supporting the legislation recognition of marriage.

For declaring yourself to be an intelligent guy, your logic is non-apparent. Now I suppose you're resort to the rubric you learned in law school of a slippery slope, go ahead. I'm glad you can parrot what your professors sold you on.

For a man devoid of emotion, I would hate to hear you when you were actually angry!

:P

[Archaea]

Because I can forcefully argue with words posted does not mean that they are necessarily emotive.

However, your arguments are dishonest and not novel, just novel for somebody who professes some small belief in the LDS Church, at least at the present. Your arguments are more representative of apostates.

Nonetheless, if you're going to accept the unreliable "studies" of the gay community, then you susceptible to accepting their political arguments as well.

As to gay issues, I'm more and more convinced there are no credible evidences, because both sides have axes to grind.

Let's take a look at the fundamental assumptions wrong in those classic gay "studies". These studies are cited by you as evidence that gay unions make some benefit to society. I'd say, even if you buy into the bullshit which these "studies" state, it's more like telling a beginning scube diver, who is supposed to exhale normally as they ascend to the surface but who is actually holding his breath, to only hold his breath for ten seconds at a time, both techniques DON'T work.

First, among many flaws in your argument, gays may sometimes, and there is no evidence to suggest that monogamy is the norm amongst all gay males, be monogamous for brief periods. This is supposed to be some major health benefit? Oh wow, spare me if I'm not overly impressed. Gays will be promiscuous during the "dating" stage, may be monogamous for their "union" and be promiscuous thereafter. They spread disease at a rate higher than traditional families.

Second, even if gays want a union, they don't have to call it marriage. And what benefit is their to society for us to give them "marriage" type benefits? There is extra cost.

Nobody, but nobody wants to address the extra burden on society that gays are, as gays. Why?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Because I can forcefully argue with words posted does not mean that they are necessarily emotive.

However, your arguments are dishonest and not novel, just novel for somebody who professes some small belief in the LDS Church, at least at the present. Your arguments are more representative of apostates.

Nonetheless, if you're going to accept the unreliable "studies" of the gay community, then you susceptible to accepting their political arguments as well.

As to gay issues, I'm more and more convinced there are no credible evidences, because both sides have axes to grind.

Let's take a look at the fundamental assumptions wrong in those classic gay "studies". These studies are cited by you as evidence that gay unions make some benefit to society. I'd say, even if you buy into the bullshit which these "studies" state, it's more like telling a beginning scube diver, who is supposed to exhale normally as they ascend to the surface but who is actually holding his breath, to only hold his breath for ten seconds at a time, both techniques DON'T work.

First, among many flaws in your argument, gays may sometimes, and there is no evidence to suggest that monogamy is the norm amongst all gay males, be monogamous for brief periods. This is supposed to be some major health benefit? Oh wow, spare me if I'm not overly impressed. Gays will be promiscuous during the "dating" stage, may be monogamous for their "union" and be promiscuous thereafter. They spread disease at a rate higher than traditional families.

Second, even if gays want a union, they don't have to call it marriage. And what benefit is their to society for us to give them "marriage" type benefits? There is extra cost.

Nobody, but nobody wants to address the extra burden on society that gays are, as gays. Why?

And off we go to the rational world of calling people we disagree with "apostates" and flinging out incomprehensible analogies (what in the world are you talking about with scuba diving?).

I ask you again for your statistics from your "survey."

As for this: "First, among many flaws in your argument, gays may sometimes, and there is no evidence to suggest that monogamy is the norm amongst all gay males, be monogamous for brief periods."
At what point did I say monogamy is the norm among all gay males? Your emotional state is making you read arguments that aren't even there. The statistics I provided dealt with monogamy among married homosexuals or those joined in civil unions (a very small percentage of the homosexual community).

Tip for your next post: when attempting to express your standards of self-righteousness, you may want to refrain from cussing; it conveys a sense of hypocrisy.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I have said no such thing. I have never stated that the LDS church should not take a stand on homosexuality, or even homosexual marriage. I have said that they should not lead efforts to establish legislation which codifies the church's position on homosexual marriage.

The church "compels" acceptance of its position when it does everything within its power to make its belief a matter of law.

Not only have we been on the losing side of legislation, we have been on the wrong side of many moral issues. That is to be expected, as the church is run by imperfect, though inspired beings. Given our past experiences, I would think more caution would be in order here.

I do find it ironic that most LDS people are much more opposed to polygamy today than non-LDS people. In this very thread, some have said that we cannot accept homosexual marriage because it could then open the door to polygamy. I tend to think polygamy is much more harmful to a society than homosexual marriage is, but the LDS position on the topic today is light years away from where it began.

Your argument is baseless, the Church is doing what it can to preserve marriage and to limit the degradation of family. You want it to not push legislation, but you have no problem with other groups to push legislation.